why can’t these people just let strippers do their jobs?

We get on tangents around here at Yellow is the Color. A week or so ago it was copyright stuff. This week, apparently, it’s strippers. All strippers all the time here at Yellow is the Color’ that’s my motto of the week.

Anyways, a bill proposed in Brooklyn this week would require strippers to obtain state permits in order to work. The New York Timesreported on it Sunday. The women quoted in the article bring up privacy concerns, which is a real and valid issue. But the mysterious mustachioed man quoted in the article sees other benefits:

“It’s a great idea to give them a license — that way if they get caught scamming guys, they get their license taken away,” Mr. Parco said as a woman with a pair of tiger eyes tattooed on the small of her back danced for a moment in front of him.

Oh, I get it. It’s not big deal to inconvenience and violate the privacy of these women, because it will benefit the poor men who may be tricked into lap dances by the evil wiley ways of tiger-eyed-tattooed women (this guy was only at the strip club in the first place for a book club, the article points out, leaving me to wonder who the hell has book events at strip clubs???). Regret that money you spent on 16 private dances? Report her to the stripper licensing board! You were drunk; she took advantage of you! You were only there to attend a book event!

Jill at Feministe tears apart the ridiculous language used in the article.

The women in the article are described in detail. All we know about Mr. Parco’s appearance is that he’s mustachioed. By contrast, the first woman quoted is described as “petite,” wearing “a sapphire blue gown with a neckline that plunged to her navel,” tossing her “long black hair” and sashaying away to her “lanky” co-workers. She may make an interesting point, but the reporter is sure to clarify that she is a dirty stripper.

I don’t know enough about this proposed bill to comment one way or another. I’m also not going to get into my personal views about sex work. But I do write, I have taken a few journalism courses in my day, and this kind of blatant sexism and sexual condescension isn’t too difficult to spot. This article is embarrassingly bad. I know strippers are titillating and existing for male gratification (until those bitches screw you out of your hard-earned money!) and sub-human and all, but the writer could have at least tried to put forth some pretense of respect. But Emily Brady — yes, the reporter is a woman — and the New York Times are quick as usual to put the bad women in their place, and to stand up for the truly downtrodden and oppressed: Mustachioed former TV actors who moonlight as strip club patrons.

I don’t know; I thought they did actually describe the one man quoted in the article in just as much detail as the women quoted. The whole feel of the article was very narrative. Nonetheless, she’s right about the fact that it’s hard to ignore the condescension in the article. A little more description of the bill and the potential consequences and a little less description of 4-inch heels would have been nice.